What proper name could we bestow? This sounds like an exercise in hubris. Not one that I would back away from, but... if you've got ideas, I'd like to hear them.
posted
I loved Novinha - she was one of my favorite characters. I don't like what she did to her family with the chronic adultery, but I loved her fierce adaptation to devastation. Her parents' deaths isolated her, and then she inadvertantly killed her family. Besides, Ender loved her.
Of all the characters in the Ender books, Olhado I admired most, Valentine was who I wished I could be, but Novinha is the only one who is familiar. I can't believe y'all don't like her!
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hated Bean. How can soneone be so smart, and yet not see the big picture. In Ender's Shaddow he SAID that the only way to keep the buggers away from Earth was to destroy their home planet, and YET, he still didn't get it! Afterwards he got it, but only after he heard of the ansible!!! Maybe It's just because I'm 12, but that seems dumb to me.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that a ban on "sharing of age" is needed, but there are some who tend to repeat it unnecessarily. In some of these cases a persons age could have been easily guessed.
Hubrus...had to look that one up...well put. I'm going to move this to a different thread, I like the original topic of this one.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We don't hate you, or anyone, though, some of your comments have taken great steps in retarding many strong political discussions. I do however extend to you an olive branch and ask that you debate with a philosophical mindset. Welcome to "the works".
quote:Ever notice how Christianity is Judaism + a savior and Islam is Christianity + another? (I know its much more complex. Just trying to get the gears going.)
It's not only more complex than that, it's totally different than that.
As an example, I'd only like to correct your understanding of Islam. Islam recognizes no deity (or deific figure) besides Allah. Allah is above all, unknowable, and remote from his creations. Allah has no humanlike attributes (in this sense, Allah is like a Nicean conception of God: no feelings, parts, or passions).
Christianity violates 2 main ideas in Islam: (a) Christ is God as Man; (b) there is an individual or personal link between God and Man (Christ).
(a) Islam does not accept any demigods (Christ as half-man, half-God) or an Incarnate God as most Christian sects do, so the elevation of Christ to anything higher than a mere man is blasphemous.
(b) For Islam, there is no intermediary possible between the unknowable, and all-powerful and man. Man's acts in following the dictates of scripture give him grace enough for eternal reward.
Anyway, I'd also go into how Christianity is a significant departure from Judaism, and not, as so glibly put "Judaism + a savior". Judaism would continue as is should the Messiah come tomorrow. They wouldn't magically become Christian.
Anyway, I'm not picking on *you*, as much as I'm nit-picking your "gears." Posts: 1 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Un-adultered Christian doctrine clearly states that Christ was neither demi-god, nor anything more than mere man. Christ was entirely of the flesh. It is also true that Christ does not serve as the "middleman" to God. This is a common misconception of "vicarious atonement". I don't care to explain it, because I know I'll be heartily rebuked for that which I've already said.
posted
Christ was both man and god. Not 50/50 or 75/25, but 100/100. His sacrifice vicariously atoned our "original sin". We don't negotiate with Christ in order to reach our Heaven. We are "saved" once and for always. If you know much about language, this would be a prime example of the aorist.
Lissa - And the deep, abiding compassion I would have, and she should have had, for her children? She destroyed her family.
I have a lot of empathy for people with problems and weaknesses that cause them to hurt themselves and others. But she had a problem with humility, and it destroyed her children. And practically to the end she wouldn't admit it was her fault.
I don't have kids because I won't screw them up. Even if the character is fictional, when I see other people do so because they can't freaking get over themselves, my compassion packs up and moves elsewhere.
posted
I don't know, Kate. I would guess that he had a complex based on the near-irreparable damage he did to the Formics and felt the need to fix something that was broken, even if he hadn't himself broken it.
But that's just my guess.
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: why does everyone hate me? Just a question.
I am reminded of my early Hatrack days BRCMTHO(before Ralphie chilled me the hell out )
Dude, nobody here hates you, and nobody is "dissing" you with a purpose to inflame. Relax man. It's all good. Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ralphie - I know. She destroyed her family before they even existed; her children had no chance. They were lucky to turn out as well as they did. Believe me when I say that parents screwing their spouses and children is a delicate topic with me, but underneath my anger at Novinha is a small spot of understanding, which is what doesn't allow me to hate her.
I guess that was what I was trying to say, however stupidly the 'deep abiding compassion' comment came off. Her reasons for acting the way she did weren't as bad as others I've come in contact with (meaning she did think she was doing right: wasn't acting purely out of selfishness), which is perhaps a mitigating, though not white-washing, circumstance. *sigh* None of this makes sense, please don't listen to me any more. Babble from me should come as a surprise to no one. Posts: 2762 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
I'm wondering if this is one of those things that separates, say, the Myers-Brigg's definition of "thinkers/feelers". A feeler is usually far more understanding of the inner turmoil that leads a person to make the choices they do while it seems thinkers are more likely to critique the outcomes of those decisions.
Not that a thinker can't be understanding, nor are feelers blind to consequences, but it seems to be a large factor in how much empathy you're going to feel for the person.
posted
I really really dislike Thrower as a character, but not because he's varelse. (Warning: I haven't read past _Red Prophet_ yet.) Rather, I worry that I may be seeing one of Card's biases in him and it makes me unhappy.
I learned fairly recently that the Alvin Maker series is in some degree a retelling of Joseph Smith's life. I belong to the churches of Christ; like LDS, we believe in an apostasy and restoration of the church, and the closest corresponding figure to Joseph Smith is Alexander Campbell. (There are many differences; bear with me.) Campbell was a Scottish Presbyterian who immigrated to America and a skeptic about the supernatural. He also disliked Smith and his movement intensely. Sound familiar?
I'm hoping that I will find no more similarities, and that the ones I have seen are accidental. The comparison is disturbing enough as it is. I understand that in many ways Card "writes his faith", but I would like to think he's above this kind of subtle dissing. Still, I suppose 150 years of bad blood can have unpleasant effects on people.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
(for those who don't know) Alexander Campbell and Joseph Smith are not comparable in any substantive sense. Campbell was neither a prophet of God nor the founder of a religion (depending on the perspective of Smith you're coming from). He was one of the many people involved in the restoration movement of the 19th century. No more.
Note: The rest of this doesn't really bear on this particular thread; it's just the most recent thingy.
I've bitten my tongue for too long. Maccabeus, I do not understand why you feel compelled, in almost every post, 1) to, often superfluously, mention your membership in the churches of Christ, and subsequently 2) to make sweeping generalizations and high-handed, again superfluous, and putatively all-encompassing statements about what the church of Christ believes. You do not speak for the corporate entity. Isn't the whole point not to have a party line to toe?
I don't want this to sound, you know, mean or anything, but couldn't you argue the issues or discuss the topic at hand without invoking the church of Christ label at every turn or presenting your beliefs or opinions as authoritative doctrine? There is ample room, in many of the areas for which you define a church position, for differences of opinion which it seems to me you consistently fail to allow for.
I'm not saying censor your beliefs or opinions. I'm just requesting you present them only as such, and allow us the latitude to do the same without looking like shockingly heretical dissent-monkeys. Deal? (I mean, as an OSC fan, Harding associate, and member of the church, you're already set up to catapult to the upper middle of the 'people Lissa thinks are cool' list, given the above and some well-placed flattery... )
posted
I feel compelled to add, Maccabeus, that if you were to mention the idea that you thought the church had been completely apostasized in many churches I am personally familiar with, you would be kicked in the groin. Okay, probably just disfellowshipped, or maybe not invited to the potluck, but it is NOT a "c of C doctrine" that the church completely apostasized because many people read that to mean that God allowed his church to completely disappear from the earth for quite a spell. Several well-respected scholars (c of C and otherwise) would have your exegetical hide over that one.
posted
Gah...Lissande, I meant only that they stand as respective "founders" of their particular religious movement, neither of which is considered as the true founder by actual adherents. I was trying to explain in a nutshell without having to go into detail.
Lissande, I don't understand your aversion to my discussions. In this case I brought up religion because it was related to the problem I had with this character--it bothered me that Card seemed to be trying to lampoon Campbell.
I think in terms of religion. All the time. I have spent oodles of free time since 1994, when I entered Harding University, considering the underlying culture and values of the churches of Christ and studying our history, the former of which is rarely even explicitly discussed and the latter of which ignored. I am trying to determine if there is anything more to us than a list of rules of interpretation and their results. If you don't want me to talk about religion, fine...I will go elsewhere to talk about it. But I don't know that I will have anything more substantial to add to conversations than "I like this book" or "I don't like this book".
I think I may disagree with you about the appropriateness of having a "party line", at least about some things, but that is beside the point. When I talk about us, I am speaking a) about what I have observed in our histories, admittedly filtered through the writers and myself and b) in generalities, not absolutes. I recognize that we are not all the same and have never claimed we are. I am simply trying to abstract something more meaningful than "we all believe something different"; if that's all there is, then why call ourselves a church at all?
I'm sorry that I bother you so much. I don't know if this description of my motives will help, but for what it's worth, there it is.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lissande never said stop talking about religion, Maccabeus. In fact, she's all for it, from what I can tell. She just wants you to quit posing like the Pope of the c's of C - 'cause last I checked, we don't have one.
Look, I understand you've spent a lot of time studying this -and that's great! I'm a member, too, and constantly shocked by how little other members know about where the movement came from. I have all sorts of opinions, beliefs and thoughts about this, but I'm not about to say "we believe blah" when WE don't. There are plenty of things that the churches of Christ hold in common. There are plenty of things one can say "We believe" about. You don't seem to know the difference, though.
What Lissande said is right: you do not allow latitude when you express your thoughts, beliefs and even convictions as the wholesale doctrines of the c's of C. Sometimes I neither believe nor agree with some things you put forth as "we believe"s. Which is why I'm bothering to speak at all. I don't like for others to speak for me, particularly when they're not speaking for me.
While I agree that there are fundamental principles to which the members of the churches of Christ subscribe, I think that you too often make your own personal convictions binding on all members by putting them forth as absolute fact. All we're campaigning for is that you use "I think" or "I believe" once in a while. I don't exactly agree that we shouldn't or don't have a "party line." I just don't think you exercise judgement before speaking for all of us.
As Lissande said, you do not speak for the corporate entity. And no one is asking you to. Speak for yourself. I really do want to know what you think, believe and feel. And I want to know why. But I do not want you to say it as though I believe it. Grant me the opportunity and respect me enough to let me speak for myself, please.
I think that you missed the bulk of what Lissande was trying to say; I think you took unnecessary offense. I don't think anyone is trying to shut you up or belittle you, only to get you to be a little more accurate in what you say.
posted
asQmh> Perhaps you're right. I sometimes assume the churches of Christ hold more in common than they do. But so far as I could tell, with one or two exceptions I had been talking about things we _do_ hold in common, and I admitted the mistake on those and backed down.
I do not understand why saying "we believe this" is setting myself up as some kind of pope. To me it is just a slightly shortened way of saying "I believe this because of what I have learned in my experiences in the church, and I have seen this expressed in many other books and articles, so it seems to be something most of us believe and the rest of us won't find completely alien." I will try and find some other way of expressing that thought, but I don't know what else to say that won't have people shutting down before they get to my point.
I'm sorry if I seem to be overly sensitive. Within the last few months I have had people in the churches of Christ forum on Beliefnet tell me that the concept of restoration is outdated, wrong, and not worth discussing. I've seen some of the "new mainline" churches trying to drag us off toward union with the evangelicals, where I don't think we belong. I have encountered books by people who are willing to scuttle the entire "old-line" concept of Biblical authority for some supposed greater good, from some theological statement to women in the pulpit. I feel as if we are coming apart as a church and worry that we will be gone by the end of this century or before. Unlike the people you described, I _do_ think that the church has been out of existence before and that sometimes it must be started from scratch, so to speak--and I worry that we are approaching such a time again.
So when I mention something that I think is the common belief of nearly all churches of Christ and get yelled at and told it isn't, sometimes I freak out. I apologize.
If you and Lissande would be willing, maybe the three of us can discuss this in a separate thread, probably in the other forum, and perhaps come to a meeting of the minds.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's probably a good idea. I think that you have to realize that "We Believe' and "I believe based on this and it seems similar to" etc. ARE different things. One is NOT an abbreviated form of another.
I'd be happy to discuss it. I think we may come to a point at which we'll disagree. I take particular offense at your remarks about restoration, but I'll be happy to hash those out as well.
I think discussing it, though, would be a good idea. So if you're so inclined to start a thread, please do.
I'll even opt out of the snarky comment I was going to make concerning what "we believe" about male leadership*.
*note: this line is just sarcasm; tongue-in-cheek stuff I only half mean.
posted
Deffinitly Navinha! (spelling?) oh my gosh, when did i start caring about speling (yes i did the one L thing on purpose for all you blondes out there)
posted
I think the difference between: "Jesus - a prophet" and "Jesus - the son of god" is a huge one for Muslims, too. They point out that *only god* can be divine, therefore he can't have a son/sons or a daughter/daughters (like some old Arab religions believe) who are imperfect human beings. Makes sense to me, actually. "He begets not, nor was He begotten." is written in the Quran. The Muslims do believe, though, that 1. Jesus was a prophet and that god supported him with miracles to "prove" that to people 2. his mother Mary gave birth to him as a virgin, but the explanation is not that god was his "father" as the Christians understand it. The Muslims explain: "when He (god) wills a thing, he says “Be!” and it is." 3. he did not die and the Jews did not kill him, rather god saved him from them and raised him up to heaven alive. 4. he will come back down at the end of time. Being raised as a catholic and being an atheist now it is still quite interesting to study different religions. For Islam I can say that the more I study it, the lesser I have terrorism associations, really. You can produce terrorism/war etc. out of many religions, *if you want*, not only out of Islam.
I suppose it would have to be the William Henry Harrison as portrayed by the Alvin Maker series. I know it's not the real history, but something about him, I just couldn't stand. Maybe it's the part Native American blood in my veins, or just that I'm a minority and sympathise with the Indians. But I couldn't hear his name in history class and not start fuming. I was 13 when I read the book for the first time. Sometimes I still feel it today.
I don't know anything about the real William Henry Harrison, and I should find out, because I hate him already, and that's not really a good thing . . .
A close runner up would be Calvin Miller/Maker.
Posts: 66 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really know that I hate any character... but I do know that alot of people seem not to like Peter Wiggin, but I think that's after you read the Shadow series, it becomes easier to understand why he was the way he was. Plus, it was in his genetics, right? Remember when he simply tested too aggressive? Perfect with the only flaw being aggressiveness. I guess if I chose someone, it would be Ela. But remember back before Miro went to catch up with Valentine and Jakt and their family in space. So Ender was still about 30 and the Ribeira children were still children by age. Remember when Ender went to go talk to Ela by the lake and Ela seemed really nice? Why is that? She must've had a really rough 30 years when Miro went into space. Maybe it was Miro's not being there...hmmm...I dunno. Wasn't Quara the one who never spoke to anyone. Ohhhh!!! I just realized, Quara was the mean one, the one I don't like. So Ela is really the one who was nice to Ender when he spoke to her by the lake. I guess Quara was just...different...what kind of person is stand-offish as a child and grows into being a mean-spirited person? I don't know, but she was definetley needed as a character in the Speaker series. So yes, Quara is the one I don't like.
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down"
Posts: 667 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I put my vote in for Mamie. Her treatment of Carol Jeanne unearthed my unending desire for FAIRNESS. I get really really upset in books and stories when people are punished unfairly. [side note: Because of this, Harry Potter 5 had me boiling over. I don't think I've hated a character quite as much as I've hated Umbridge....] Anyway, back to Lovelock. I remember growling at that book. The awful thing is, she started to fit right in with the 'community.'
My second vote is just pure irritation...that would have to be Isaac in Rebekah. This makes me sad because my religious self wants to love him and think he's perfect. I thought he was so annoyingly self-condemning in the book...and then comes the fairness thing again with Esau and Jacob. He was so snarky and moody all the time too. Arrrgh.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see a lot of people putting Mamie as the one the hate the most. But, I think her son Red was a lot worse than her. He cheated on Carol Jeanne, he used the kids against her, always took his mother's side in any of their fights, and when Carol Jeanne finally confronted him about cheating she still wanted to work it out, while he used it as a way to get rid of her, and stick her with his mom. He was so two-faced as well, being such a great guy in front of everyone else, while at home he was an ass. Also, the two patients he had, he had an affair with both of them. Jeez, I hate that guy.
Posts: 290 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My two cents: Even though lots of people hated Novinha, and she was really obnoxios, I still pitied her. However, Quara really got on my nerves in the last couple of books. The other person I hate would be Gloriously Bright. She was just so arrogant, stuck up, vain, stubborn.. ..well, you get my point. And surprisingly I didn't like Sister Carlotta much either. Don't ask me why. And of course there were the characters that you're supposed to hate: Bonzo, Achilles, Bernard, Baba Yaga, etc, etc...
Just for the record, I like Bean. I think he was a very interesting character, and I can't wait to find out if he gets so big that his head explodes . I also think Ela was a great, well-rounded character, not to mention she was what really held her family together.
Posts: 4174 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'd say Graff. He was so underdeveloped; sometimes he was a grandfather figure, the next he was the devil incarnate, and it made absolutely no sense for him to change where he changed.
I don't hate Qin Jao, Quara, or Novinha that much because I can understand why they'd feel like that. For Qin Jao, I mean, how would you feel if somebody told you that you're foundation for every one of your beliefs was a myth? What would you think if someone told you that gravity is an affect of a mental illness and they have the ability to remove that from you? I, for one, am plenty happy standing upright, feet on the ground, and I would refuse to accept that anectdote and would refuse to believe that gravity doesn't exist. To Qin Jao, the OCD was like gravity.
And for Novinha: She was a bitch, yes, but think about why she was a bitch. With the exception of her children, which were almost too young to fully understand what she was going through at the time, everybody she loved died from unnatural causes. And she was at the very center of it. I would definitely isolate myself from people, at least for a few years, after that.
And Quara: think who raised her? My dad likes The Beatles, Led Zepplin, and John Denver; and I like The Beatles, Led Zepplin, and John Denver. My mom likes JRR Tolkien, and I like JRR Tolkien. I also have, basically, the same moral beliefs and religion as my parents. Coincidence? Not likely. Quara was raised by two parents who hated themselves, and when you hate yourself, you hate others more, even your children. She was also the youngest girl so she would naturally be the closest (or want to be the closest) to her angst-ridden mother. Oh, and remember that she and Grego were the youngest when Marcao died and the truth about their identities were uncovered. How would you feel if, at a young and tender age, you learned that you hadn't just lost one dad, but two, and that - surprise, surpise - the replacement for both of them was another angst ridden fool who thought he had killed, not a few friends and family, but an entire species.
I didn't much care for Qin Jao's whispers in Children of the Mind, though. About 1/4 of them were whines about how her father betrayed her. In my opinion, she should be pitying her father for being so easily confused by a false go (Jane).
Posts: 2292 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
I don't think Campbell and Thrower can be directly analogized. I've just been over the results of a search for Sidney Rigdon/Alexander Campbell (Sidney was a former disciple of Campbell and caused a stir by going over to the Mormons and rising quickly). It is clear to me that Campbell's dislike for the Mormons is pronounced. I suspect that Sidney isn't wholly to blame for this. However, the claim is made again and again by Campbell that Rigdon was the real author and founder of the doctrines of the Mormon church. This is not a position that can be supported by the facts, btw. Other similar casualties: Orson Hyde, Parley Pratt, Orson Pratt, Lyman Wight, Edward Partridge and Fredric Williams - a roster of early leaders of the church, basically.
So - while there was plenty of bad blood between Campbell and the LDS church (surprising to none), most of it stems from a large number of faithful and effective disciples going from one church to another. The number of switchers is not surprising, considering that they are both "restorations". Campbell proved himself to be right - his assertion that a proliferation of sects aids contention is shown clearly in his own anger.
Thrower is a different beast entirely. He embodies arrogance mated to shallow understanding. (Campbell was a serious student of the scriptures.) The desires of Thrower's heart are glory and majesty (for himself) and the ability to stand over others. I don't think Campbells motivations were similar, though I haven't read thoroughly enough to say. Once coopted by his Visitor, Thrower's priorities change - he is now solely bent on destroying Alvin. There is no evidence I have seen that says Campbell had any significant desire to do the same with Smith - his opinions on Smith himself are hardly noticable. It's all about Rigdon There was substantial vitriol between the churches in their day, but neither focused on the other to the exclusion of all else.
Thrower has given himself to evil. He is a type for the clergy members of Joseph's time whose bloodthirst and anger were expressed in mobs, assasination attempts and individual violence, men unworthy of their callings. My own great-great-grandfather (not a LDS member at the time) almost died in an attempt to save a missionary from the local clergyman, who was attempting to drown the poor fellow. The attempt to drown the missionary and the later retaliation of the clergyman were serious enough that my grand*father caught tuberculosis as a result. There were plenty of this sort of person around, apparently, and they are the models for Thrower.
Thrower also knows Alvin to have the powers he has. He fights Alvin because he's under the impression that these powers are of the devil. Campbell's simply a skeptic - he thinks of Mormons as "deluded", not dangerous.
I think Campbell is safe. He was certainly starting from a more correct set of ideas than most others of his time, IMHO. If any analogy can be drawn, it's that Campbell disliked Joseph and Mormons.
As for Card - it's unlikely that there's bad blood. Few Mormons can be moved to any particular emotional state by the mention of Alexander Campbell. Those who paid attention in Seminary might remember that he was a mentor of Sidney Rigdon, but he's not really mentioned beyond that. From informed people, you might get a reaction of "Ah! The one who wanted a restoration of the gospel, right? He did a good job of pulling people together for us in Kirtland."
posted
As for whhich character I hate the most - I can't really say I hate any of them - Card doesn't set up straw men that you can just go and hate, generally. The ones that frustrate me the most are Quara, Novinha and Quing-Jao. The ones that make me saddest are Sugar (in Unaccompanied Sonata) and Angel (Wyrms). The one I fear most is Achille, but he's kind of a bugbear - not well developed, just pathological. The ones I most despise are Cavil Planter and Calvin.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Afterwards he got it, but only after he heard of the ansible!!! Maybe It's just because I'm 12, but that seems dumb to me.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
)![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
..well, you get my point. And surprisingly I didn't like Sister Carlotta much either. Don't ask me why. And of course there were the characters that you're supposed to hate: Bonzo, Achilles, Bernard, Baba Yaga, etc, etc...![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
. I also think Ela was a great, well-rounded character, not to mention she was what really held her family together.
